Of course, Spokesman Adams declined to divulge the total budget for each of the shelters being closed: Brockton, Martha’s vinyard, and Springfield. Given how hard-hit economically Brockton and Springfield are, animals may die to keep those four men earning their cool million.
More than one big donor has walked away from the MSPCA over its commitment to a fat elite over safe animals:
Lou Whitney, the co-owner of DoggieDay, an animal-care service located in the South End, said his business has helped raise more than $30,000.00 for the MSPCA in recent years but will not participate in any future fund-raising efforts to benefit the society because the money doesn’t directly go to caring for the animals. “We’ve severed our ties with the MSPCA for this specific reason,” Whitney said. “We found the MSPCA to be a place where people were looking to secure financial positions for themselves, rather than focusing on helping the animals. I think that insread of paying out those ridiculous salaries, they should use the money to make sure they’re providing a service to the community.”
I will go one better – when I donated to the MSPCA I thought the money went to take care of dogs and cats – not Four Fat Cats.
For the Globe story, go to: http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
For the Herald story on the same topic, go to:
http://news.bostonherald.com/n…
To look at your, possibly former, favorite charity and see who in the elites you have been supporting to live a style above and beyond anything YOU could possibly afford:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…
to
This is shameful!! Maybe as a reform we should do away with the CEO position entirely. Some how the position seems to have made the assumption that they are more entitled then everyone else.
<
p>Little do they realize that if they were the last one standing in the room there would be no one to serve them coffee!
<
p>As usual Just my Opinion
<
p>Maybe we should start a thread posting all public CEO compensation call it the “Emperor’s new cloths!”
How do we know that these salaries are disproportionate to the value the employees provide?
<
p>Just by way of example, according to the MSPCA’s 2007 IRS filing, the organization raised nearly $20 million dollars that year. If they’re paying the VP for development $200,000, it may be that they’re getting a bargain. I suppose you’d have to compare the ratio of contributions to development salaries among non-profits to see whether that’s so.
<
p>TedF
People should be doing Good work for its own sake not for money.
<
p>These people should be motivated by helping animals, not by money. By not paying them, that ensures we get people who are pure — they should love animals so much that they do this for free.
<
p>The same with teachers. We don’t need to pay them well, because we want to only encourage people to be teachers who teach for its own sake, not for dirty, filthy money.
<
p>This goes double for public defenders, social workers, cops, etc. Love of the job should be its own reward. If we give them good salaries they will be tainted.
The scene: Thanksgiving dinner. It’s been beautifully prepared. Our hero is grateful:
Gazing fondly across the table at your mother-in-law, you rise to your feet and pull out your wallet. “Mom, for all the love you’ve put into this, how much do I owe you?” you say sincerely. As silence descends on the gathering, you wave a handful of bills. “Do you think $300 will do it? No, wait, I should give you $400!”
[Ariely, Predictably Irrational, p. 67]
<
p>There are some good and valuable things that we expect to lie outside the sphere of money. A Thanksgiving dinner cooked by a relative is one of them. On the other hand, there are services that we don’t think twice about paying for, e.g., electricity. We’d also be unsurprised to learn that utility executives are paid more than MSPCA executives.
<
p>The function of MSPCA lies somewhere between sweet potatoes and kilowatts. We buy its services to take care of animals but the idea of someone being paid to love puppies and kitty cats arouses a bit of dissonance. That’s why I think stomv’s calculations downthread of MSPCA’s efficiency is probably a better guide than leaning too heavily on the inconsistencies baked into our thinking about money.
You just, literally, laid out the argument I get from my parents regarding teaching…it was scary to read your satire. Seriously.
It is deliberately misleading, because you mean the opposite of what you are saying.
<
p>Fair and reasonable compensation should be the case whether for a self-employed person, or an employee in any field – whether a musician, a policeman, a public defender, a professor, or a mechanic – whether any of these individuals are employees or independent contractors should not change a thing.
<
p>The question then becomes: What is reasonable compensation?
<
p>Should a mechanic be paid 1000 times the hourly rate of a policeman, because if your brakes fail, you die? If there is only one person in the world who can play a zither, should every hour of zither music be worth $1,000,000?
<
p>Similarly, should donated dollars be of the same value, and have the same analysis as tax dollars, or consumer dollars for a discretionary proeduct?
<
p>Again, what is worth? At one point, the legislature passed a bill that our legislators not be paid more than the average worker in our state. That is why the base salary of a legislator is $58,000.00 This was done to make sure that legislators understood what their constituents needed, and were in touch with real life. Does it mean that the value of an 80 hour week during budget crunch time is only that? I would say, “Of course not.”
<
p>When it becomes more important to pay a CEO 20x, 30x, 100x what a worker earns, will that CEO make wise decisions affecting that worker? Personally, I doubt it.
<
p>For the MSPCA the choice appears clearer than for a widget factory, or a Publicity firm. Those of us who donated did so to keep shelters open and protect animals. We did not donate in order to “keep up with the Joneses” on CEO compensation.
<
p>So I consider your “why pay them well” for the public servants you listed a derogatory straw man attack. Your satiric post does not in any way relate to or illuminate a dicussion of the idea that CEO pay should bear a reasonable relationship to the pay for workers in an organization, the organizations case flow, and the purpose of the organization, as well as be responsive to the financial health of the company or organization.
I think Sco’s point is spot on. Moreover, I think attacks on nonprofit and public sector wages are completely third rail. That’s not to say you and others don’t occasionally have a point, but these sorts of things are no where near as important in the grand scheme of things as 100 other more pressing issues in this state – yet overboard public/nonprof sector salaries and pensions are all we seemingly hear about when it comes to state business. I do tire of it, not that I’m opposed to fixing the small abuses that do occur.
I think my sarcasm detector is blaring, but I’m not 100% sure (the internet is only 2d). So I’m going with my rant anyway.
People deserve to be paid well if they do a good job, whether they operate a charity, run a school, patrol the streets or build cars. Love of the job is certainly a great reward, but being able to feed your kids, buy a home and go on the occasional vacation is a great part of what attracts talent something everyone deserves and should be able to obtain should they work hard.
<
p>Are the salaries in this case out of whack in this economy? Seems so. But having a few low 3-figure salaries in a nonprofit as large as the one in question seems pretty reasonable to me.
<
p>While the salaries in question does seem out of whack in this economy, it’s not anywhere remotely close to being as out of whack as the notion that people who take do-gooder jobs should be happy with any paycheck. No, they shouldn’t. This is a key part of why liberals have been hurt in this country for the past few decades – we think people should be happy for any salary if they’re doing a ‘do-gooder job.’ Conservative organizations, meanwhile, pay well and offer great benefits. The result? Liberal causes attract young talent who eventually burn out in the vast majority of cases, going on to the private sector and often turning off politically, while conservatives retain much of their institutional talent.
<
p>Obviously, this case is a little different, being that it’s about animal shelters, but the same sort of thing applies – if you want talented people working at not for profit dog shelters, then they have to be paid decently and offered good benefits, otherwise they’ll leave for the private sector. While we can expect reasonable salaries in the nonprofit sector, we shouldn’t expect them to live purely on franks, beans and love of the animals.
The MSPCA is one of my favorite charities, and I was contemplating sending them some more money after reading that some of their shelters would need to be shut down, but I don’t think I will send them any more until I hear their execs are taking a steep pay cut.
<
p>Now, I don’t think I agree that a CEO of a nonprofit should necessarily make no more than 100K, especially in an expensive city like Boston, but 300+ does seem excessive, and when they are laying people off they had better be willing to share the pain.
As a long time donor to the MSPCA, I’m really gobsmacked by this.
<
p>But, as TedF points out, if the talent is ‘proving their worth’ I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. It is just that during lean times, such highly paid execs should take a pay cut, rather than having a cut in services.
Not everybody is qualified — or good at — running a $100,000,000 organization. These execs would almost certainly make far more money in the private sector. In effect, they already are taking a massive pay cut to do good works.
<
p>Let’s have a look at the MSPCA Charity Navigator page. Three stars in each category. That makes the MSPCA strong (though not spectacular) in every category. They’re spending over 90 cents of every dollar raised on the animals, which is actually quite efficient. Admin expenses are less than $1 for every $15 in revenue, and their fund raising is pretty efficient as well.
<
p>The MSPCA is doing a good job as a charity. They’re focused on their mission, and that’s where the vast majority of the money raised goes. The money doesn’t raise itself, and the organization doesn’t run itself. Furthermore, it’s not just about being qualified. If one guy is going to raise $1M more than the other, it’s certainly worth paying him an extra $100,000 to hire him. Likewise, if one gal is going to allocate resources more efficiently, saving $1M, it’s certainly worth paying her an extra $100,000 to hire her.
<
p>
<
p>Want non-profit execs to make less? Drive down the salary of for-profit execs. Otherwise, all you’re arguing is that the organization should be penny wise and pound foolish, spending less money on salaries but getting far less funds raised and far less efficient and expenditure of those funds. You’ve paid the top dogs less, but the rest of the dogs and cats will suffer more too. How is that better?
is actually very impressive. Usually 80% is the standard.
Charity Navigator only looks at one tax return to determine % going to admin vs the charity
<
p>As you will read below, from Wikipedia, many charities scam the system by playing with their returns
<
p>Lets look at a 5 year rolling average for the MSCPA and then have a party to annoint them the be all end all of charities
<
p>Keep in mind,rating agencies have a role to play, Moringstar and the rest rated Wall Street triple A, then the botom fell out, savy readers want more info, Charity Navigator offers very little evidence by utilizing only one return
<
p>Using publicly available tax returns (IRS Form 990) filed with the Internal Revenue Service, the Charity Navigator rating system bases its evaluations in two broad areas – organizational efficiency and organizational capacity. Based on how the charity rates in each of the two areas, it is assigned an overall rating, ranging from zero to four stars. To help donors avoid becoming victims of mailing-list appeals, each assessment of a charity’s finances is accompanied by a review of its commitment to keeping donors’ personal information confidential.
<
p>However, the IRS Form 990 categorizes a charity’s expenditures into three broad categories that are open to accounting manipulation. The nonprofit sector does not have the strict financial regulation and transparency required from public corporations (under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, among others), creating limitations on how accurately a charity’s efficiency can be graded based on a tax return.
<
p>This methodology was criticized in an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review for taking into account only a single year’s IRS Form 990.[3] This can lead to significant fluctuation in the ranking of a charity from year to year.[3] Also, the focus on the IRS Form 990 has itself been criticized, as the accuracy and reliability of IRS Form 990 data is questionable.[4] Particularly relevant to Charity Navigator’s methodology is that 59% of the 58,000 charities receiving public donations in 1999 failed to report any fundraising expenditures, illustrating a potential problem with relying upon IRS Form 990 figures alone when analyzing an organization.[4]
<
p>As of December 2007, Charity Navigator would recommend donors support concerns that meet six criteria:[5]
<
p>Able to communicate who they are and what they do
Defined short-term and long-term goals
Able to state the progress it has made (or is making) toward its goal
Programs make sense (to the donor)
Trustworthy
Programs that you (the donor) feel you can make a long term commitment
The “Top salary at MSPCA” is not $340,595. That’s the value of salary and benefits, including insurance, etc. It’s still a lot of salary, but in terms of being correct, it’s not exclusively salary.
Why can’t I press “vote” without checking a box to add to the denominator without adding to any of the numerators. After all, I don’t believe that any of those five items are “proper” but I can’t seem to register that belief in the poll.
I don’t know if a poll can be changed after people have responded.
I would have corrected my typo [hopefully the only one I did not catch] it were possible to “edit” the poll.
<
p>However, stormv made it clear he disagrees with me totally in his comment.
<
p>Maybe, stormv, you could do a post as to why CEOs of public and private companties are more valuable than 50 or 100 workers – or more, and why living on $100k is too much to ask, as well. With poll.
Under a planned economy, we could make precisely the sort of moral calculation you propose, and pay people based on their contribution to society.
<
p>We don’t live there.
<
p>The problem, I think, with CEO overcompensation, has more to do with the interlocking of boards and top management, the lack of transparency of public corporations, and the market-induced pressures to focus on the near term. At the level of MSPCA’s compensation, I’m not sure that this applies.
<
p>Also, I don’t know why stomv is required to answer your question while you are exempted from answering his/hers.
I don’t think I have EVER been called shy and retiring, after all. As I recall, I had my first detention for fighting in first grade when someone made fun of how I walked with my [at that time] not yet surgically corrected club feet.
<
p>I do not agree nor per my analysis are the bloated pay rates and compensation for CEOs and quasi-lobbyists like inhouse fundraisers needed to get very good talent indeed.
<
p>It is also my experience one can live very well, even with children, in this area for $100k a year.
<
p>I do not believe that there is a hidden tribe among us who are inherently so different and better than every one else that they alone are worth 50 or 100 lesser mortals in their compensation, and that only they have the intelligence, discernment, fortitude, integrity, and energy to be the CEO, CFO, VP of dough collection, etc. of these organizations.
<
p>The talent, energy, and intellect I have seen in those not admitted to the Tribe of Money Changers in the Temple might surprise you.4a7d3d609129a9296bf7ac0608c2097
<
p>In my opinion, the dogs and cats would not suffer if the CEO of the MSPCA took a pay cut to $100k and no exec there earned over $100k until the MSPCA was able to keep all its shelters open and running and felt confident in its “endowment”…or a new CEO willing to work to restore credibility to the agency and rebuild its donor base came onboard for $100k or less. I am absolutely certain a talented and zealous exec could be found to do this. I would love to see it tried by the MSPCA and others.
<
p>On philosophical and historical grounds it is my opinion that no CEO should earn more than 10x the average wages of those who work for their company, and no CEO of a charity should earn more than 5x the earnings of the average worker for their charity.
<
p>Sorry – there is not a tribe of CEO mutants who are so rare and superior they are worth 100s of the rest of us.
I’m talking about how much money a good one costs.
<
p>You’re talking about how much they should be paid based on their worth.
<
p>There is a market for executives. Welcome to capitalism. Some people are paid more than others and on grounds that have nothing to do with worth.
<
p>Note: KBusch. Six letters, not five.
Suppose there were an objective set of criteria for rating CEOs. Weight would be given for intelligence, diplomatic skills, understanding of the organization, management training, academic credentials, record with regard to integrity and behavior, etc.
<
p>Suppose two individuals had equal “ratings” but one really wanted to be the CEO of the MSPCA because he/she believed in its mission, and believed that the mission was itself imperilled by the pay scale – and therefore told the hiring committee “I will accept no more than $100k in compensation” – sort of an IACCOCA parable.
<
p>There is a moral dimension, a philosophical dimension; the concept of “worth” itself is not a simple matter of dollars and cents and Adam Smith himself knew that – but members of the elite have used capitalism’s jargon to play quite a few folks for suckers by ignoring the inherent moral dimension of the “theory” and “philosophy” of capitalism.
<
p>Adam Smith assumed [wrongly] that all capitalists would be good “Christian Gentlemen” – BOY was he wrong.
<
p>Quite a few – think Bernie Madoff and George Bush were tribal members who are, in their view, so entitled, that as long as they and their in crowd have tons of money, all is peachy keen.
<
p>What if a morally and economically driven revolt led to revulsion against the bloated pay of the self-congratulating in crowd – and revulsion as to their morally moronic code – and they were no longer “worth” more than their workers got?
<
p>I am sick and tired, personally, of seeing humans batten like blood sucking ticks on other humans.
‘Market’ prices are and would be influenced by demand in addition to ” intelligence, diplomatic skills, understanding of the organization, management training, academic credentials, record with regard to integrity and behavior, etc.”
<
p>In this way, the market isn’t a measure of objective worth, only worth in the market.
<
p>Of course, the market’s ability to tie market worth to actual worth is a function of market psychology. If there is a ‘market’ for people, they it’d be foolish to expect the market to operate in ‘objective’ ways.
Currently, as shown by the comments in the article – and my own conclusions – the MSPCA will not get a dime from me until it changes its ways. I am not alone.
<
p>Therefore, in providing these “fat cat salaries” on charitable dimes, the “marketing” decision may turn out to be a disaster once these salaries were made public, and I don’t think mere “spin” about these four folk being worth a million dollars plus will fix what is a marketing and publicity meltdown.
<
p>You want my donations? Then your leadership has to be credible – with me.
Amber, I don’t agree with your particular argument about the excessiveness of these salaries, because I don’t think you’ve made much of a case that they are excessive in relation to the benefits these employees provide to MSPCA. If the MSPCA didn’t think it was getting its money’s worth, it wouldn’t pay the salaries. You haven’t pointed to any facts suggesting that the MSPCA is paying more than the going rate, so to speak, for what it’s getting.
<
p>But that said, the point you make in this comment is important. Ultimately, MSPCA relies on donations, and if enough people like you are going to withhold donations when they learn of the MSPCA’s compensation practices, then it will certainly be in MSPCA’s interest to pay its executives less, even if that means that the organization will lose some value because it won’t be able to attract and retain the employees it wants.
<
p>TedF
And I don’t think what I pointed out is in any conflict with that. Certainly they need to deal with the reality about how their salaries look in the eyes of donors and account for any fallout. That being said, it’s nevertheless the case that there is a market for labor and they have to navigate those waters as well. All of this is just pointing out the realities of the factors in play. I make no assertion that they way the played them was good, bad, right, or wrong. They’ll find that out themselves the hard way if it comes to it.
when you’re talking about the execs at Citigroup, or even private corps that are doing relatively well, but pay their low-ranking employees poorly.
<
p>But you’re talking about the head of a nonprofit that earns around $300,000 a year. I won’t even disagree that, in this economy, that seems like a bit much – but lumping him in with the CEOs that make 50-100x their average worker is not only unfair but intellectually dishonest. They’re a whole other scale of bad. The CEO of MSPCA is like the little kid who didn’t like to share his toys, but would if his mother made him. The CEO of citi is like the little kid who didn’t want to share his toys, so pushed his friend down from the top of the stairs, killing him — and then laughing about it. They’re a whole different kind of bad – I like to call it “evil.”
<
p>Conflating the snotty, bratty toddler with the bat shit crazy one is, as I said, intellectually dishonest. It’s two different threads.
Limit her salary?
<
p>Are you proposing a confiscatory tax on incomes over say, $400K?
We self employed types earn what we earn, and that depends partly on market and partly on values. Every time I do pro bono legal work – I decrease my income – but I don’t have a “salary”. I don’t think Oprah has a “salary” unless she created a corporation to pay herself. Some of my colleagues do that.
<
p>I think the self-employed are not only entitled to earn as much as they can – because of what people are willing to pay them – but should be able to deduct things that are not currently deductions. That is for another post. THIS topic however has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
<
p>Gary – your “confiscatory tax” comment is a red hearing, and straw man argument. Here are links, albeit merely Wikipedia that explain what a “red herring” and “straw man” are. I have not used the word tax once, nor am I talking or have I mentioned government action at all.
<
p>”Red Herring“: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R… A “red herring” such as your comment is a deliberate attmpt to divert an argument of change the subject. My personal view is that throwing a red herring in is the equivalent aesthetically of throwing a dead, rotting fish at me. Yuck on you for that!
<
p>”Straw Man“: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S… This is another form of sloppy, deliberately deceptive argument where the other person’s argument is misrepresented. Note: You are bringing in the idea of taxation – I did not – and Oprah Winfrey, who is definitely a different category than a morality-based public charity.
<
p>When you are throwing around stinking dead fish and stuffed scarecrows your credibility is below zero.
First, the only “red hearing” I know of is linked.
<
p>Second, what business is it of yours or anyone what someone else earns, unless it is you or your taxes paying them? Does it somehow harm your sensibilities that MSPCA pays big $$ to an exec?
<
p>I’m just asking what you’re advocating: limit CEO pay by government statute? Is that it? Something else? You say you’re not talking about a tax, or government action. If that’s not it then maybe you’re just flinging around rant and outrage because someone earns a lot. Is that it? Ok, if that it, then grrrr…I’m mad too. Darn MSPCA guy, he just earns too much. Grrrrrr…bad dog.
<
p>I’m missing something, I think. Suppose I were the best self-employed doggie caretaker in the world, and people were willing to pay me lots of money to take and care for their unwanted pets. Why should the standards for judging my compensation be any different than the standards for judging the compensation of MSPCA’s executives?
<
p>Is your point that employees of non-profit organizations, but not for-profit organizations, have an obligation in some cases to take less pay than they could earn in the market?
<
p>TedF
MSPCA has not convinced me that it is “good value” to pay those salaries.
<
p>As a donor, I will with hold donations because I am convinced that the salaries being paid are excessive, beyond the value of those employees, and are wasting my donations.
<
p>It is NOT my job to “prove” that the salaries being paid, in an organization that has sought and received my donations, are excessive.
<
p>It IS MSPCA’s role to “prove” that as a fiduciary of my donations, they have acted with prudence, frugality, and integrity. It is my opinion that they have not done so.
<
p>Until I am convinced that my donations will be used in a way that I consider appropriate, MSPCA will not get another penny from me. That, if you will, is “the market” in action.
<
p>Here is an analogy. I think the “market” and Wall Street seem to agree, the $40 million plus yearly compensation for some “Hedge Fund” employees was an error – and this severe market correction we are all experiencing may, in part, be the result of excessive compensation to self-dealing executives and boards in excess of their real and actual value and the shareholders, public, and purchasers or stock are not going to, in essence, tender any donations until they are once again convinced they are getting their money’s worth. Certainly true of me.
<
p>You seem to state that paying more to an executive means you always get a better and more valuable executive. I am totally unconvinced by that argument.
I don’t disagree with a lot of this; see my comment earlier in this thread. But I still don’t see why the fact that person A is self-employed and person B is an employee makes a difference, as you seem to suggest.
<
p>TedF
If someone is self employed, each client makes an immediate value decision as to whether they are getting their money’s worth.
<
p>If someone is an employee, and an organization [ANY organization] over values their employees, the organization will, whether quickly or slowly, go out of business.
<
p>In a charity, if the payments made to employees seem to violate the values/reason for existence of the charity, its donors will stop donating and it will cease to exist.
<
p>There are similarities, but no more.
The Hedge fund guys made mult-millions because of the “carry”.
<
p>Meaning that if their fund made money, they took a piece of the action. Hedge fund guys are the ultimate self-employed guys: they used their connections, took a lot of money from a lot of people, invested it and in the go-go years of 2000-2006, profited and took back 30% of the profit. Their salary was small as a percent of the carry.
<
p>So now you’ve singled out the hedge fund guys, who in my mind are self-employed and saying they earned too much.
<
p>Oprah, who’s self-employed didn’t earn too much.
<
p>MSPCA guy with a salary, earns too much.
<
p>You’ve got a mish-mash of ideas going on here.
but even a stopped clock is right twice a day =)
90% of money raised goes directly towards the pets. Clearly the organization is doing something right.
<
p>What’s the long term result of all this third-rail politicking? An organization that pays out 14 out of every 15 dollars towards its pets is getting blasted in the headlines and could lose out on millions in fundraising – which may result in even more clinics closing, layoffs and far fewer dogs being able to be taken in.
<
p>How’s the saying relevant to this situation go? Cutting off your nose to spite your face?
You’re comparing the highest paid CEOs in the private sector with someone making $300k – which is most certainly not 50 or 100 workers. It’s maybe 3, after you factor in the costs for benefits, insurance, taxes and other costs per employer. If you want to complain about the tens or hundreds of millions some CEOs earn in the private sector, this isn’t the post to do it. No offense, but this sort of argument is beneath the quality of your typical posts.
I have a hard time believing, for example, that the CEO of Citigroup would have earned $60+ million last year if shareholders voted on it. Transparency and a public process, even if it only included those who owned shares in the company, would go a long way toward evening the gap between employee and CEO/execs.
<
p>Why are CEOs more valuable than 50 or 100 workers? Because they can single handedly create or destroy more wealth than those 50 or 100 workers. That’s why. It’s really simple. It doesn’t mean they’re better people. The difference between a good and a weak line employee doesn’t have a significant impact on the bottom line. The difference between a good and a weak executive has a huge difference. Would I pay my line employee $300,000 more a year if his increased productivity would add at least that much value to my bottom line each year? Sure. I’d do the same for my CEO. The difference is that no employee can create $300,000 more wealth per year when compared to other line employees. However, the difference between a good CEO and a mediocre one in a $100,000,000 organization is a huge amount of money, certainly more than 0.3%.
<
p>Is the MSPCA CEO particularly good? I have no idea. But is it worth firing him and bringing in the best person they could get at only $100,000 salary? Only if the differential only costs them $250,000 in productivity out of their $100,000,000 organization.
<
p>The goal of the MSPCA is to provide as much as possible for the animals. How much it pays its employees to accomplish this isn’t really relevant. If paying their top exec $350,000 a year in wages and bennies benefits the animals more than a cheaper exec, then they ought to do it. If they could pay someone $100,000 and have an equally successful organization, then they ought to do that.
<
p>If you know of any people who have experience running a $100,000,000 organization well and are willing to work for $100,000, I encourage you to contact the MSPCA and pass this person’s resume along.
<
p>
<
p>Whether or not somebody can live on $100k a year is irrelevant. Each of us are entitled to bargain for as much of a salary and benefits as we can get. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with paying someone more than $100k if they’re adding more than $100k in wealth to your company, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with negotiating to earn more than $100k (even if you don’t provide that wealth).
<
p>
<
p>P.S. It’s stomv. No ‘r’. Not an infrequent mistake.
$300k or so is a lot of money, but at best it pays for 6 employees in Massachusetts earning an average salary – and that doesn’t account for benefits, taxes and insurance on that salary. Honestly, when you get right down to it, if the CEO decided to work for free, it probably saves 3 average jobs.
Without adequate compensation Joe for Oil or the American Red Cross and many other non-profits would collapse. Non-profit doesn’t have to mean not lucrative. Let those that are indignant about compensation donate their time.
<
p>Altruism never paid the rent.
Why are we going around trying to limit people’s salaries in these free market positions? People should get paid according to whatever the market pays. If the NPO believes they can get by with a $100K person then let them and if it fails so will the NPO… and if it succeeds then so will the NPO. I think we need to stop this “Limit the CEO” mob mentality which has bubbled to the top.
<
p>Did anyone notice the US PostMaster General made over $875K last year. Where’s the outrage? Was the MSPCS CEO worth $340K, was Michelle Obama worth $316K to University of Chicago Hospital? Do we really want to get into deciding if Reverend Wright should have received a $1 million home from his non profit church?
<
p>Let the non-profits manage themselves and be governed by the existing state laws run by Democratic AG Coakley.
I agree that there is no reason to legislate the salaries of nonprofit officers or employees, but that does not mean I cannot take that information into account when choosing which charities to give to.
I am saying that, based on my data set, the compensation for many executives is out of line with their value to their organizations ANd just as there seems to be a “market correction” as to housing values, there is – and should be – a “market correction” so that compensation is appropriate to value.
<
p>It is not a good faith negotiation for compensation when the rates of compensation:
<
p>1. Do not reflect value to the organization.
<
p>2. Are the result of “pay to play” and “quid pro quo” interactions, out of the sight of the press and the citizenry, and between interlinked, self-dealing, closed elites.
<
p>Just because someone got paid oodles of money – and enough to keep four shelters for animals open – or more – does not mean they did deserve to be paid or were worth all that money.
<
p>As to whether all those folks not brought up by me, and thrown in as red herrings and straw man arguments did – or did not – earn OR are – or are not – worth what they were paid/are being paid – or earn, or whatever – in reality, that is a fact driven matter and not even relevant to this discussion. I do not know whether Madam X or Mister Z are paid too much.
<
p>In my opinion as a donor, salaries adding up to over a million dollars should have been voluntarily reduced before animal shelters were closed. I am 100% entitled to that opinion.
<
p>I am also convinced, based on my reading in Bloomberg and other sites that many CEO and Board salaries were artificially and in a manner I at least consider improper, engorged and enlarged beyond value by self-dealing, pay to play, and quid pro quo interactions. As more and more of these unsavory practices are revealed during this market correction period, you will either agree – or not – with that opinion of mine!
As to whether all those folks not brought up by me, and thrown in as red herrings and straw man arguments did – or did not – earn OR are – or are not – worth what they were paid/are being paid – or earn, or whatever – in reality, that is a fact driven matter and not even relevant to this discussion. I do not know whether Madam X or Mister Z are paid too much.
<
p>It is odd for you to be handing out lessons in logic since much of your argument seems to rest on a sophistical use of the word “worth”.
<
p>
In my opinion as a donor, salaries adding up to over a million dollars should have been voluntarily reduced before animal shelters were closed. I am 100% entitled to that opinion.
<
p>Uh, this is a blog. Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion. (You’re welcomed.) However, the point of posting on blogs is you get your opinions examined with actual responses, you know. So we are also within our rights to assert that your opinion is irrational or lacks basis in fact. Of course, you may choose to retain your opinion despite such comments.
As to “Uh this is a blog” :
<
p>1. Condescension doesn’t win points for logic.
<
p>2. I provided facts and links. You provided what? Opinion, of course. But, as you say, “this IS a blog”.
<
p>3. As to “sophistry” – nope, the shoe does not fit [analogy, not logic!] at all. “Sophistry” in terms of logic or argument consists of what is no more than a quality word for “I don’t approve of your argument”. See Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com… Your choice to call the totality of the discussions and concerns and analysis brought forward by me “sophistry” is to accuse me of being “subtly deceptive” in my argumentation. That means “Kbush doesn’t like Deborah’s argument” and will use a “I don’t like this word” as a criticism.
<
p>As to what you consider “subtle” [a back handed compliment if ever I heard one] or “deceptive” as in “seductive” perhaps – about my argumentation I frankly am left in the dark.
<
p>On the other hand, I don’t think we are going to come to any agreement because, as in most debate/argument it is the axioms and the statement of facts which form the foundation for the discussion. We have not, in the discussion of this issue, come to any agreed set of axioms or facts.
<
p>The concept of “worth” is, itself, one that can require considerable analysis, and that cuts across several areas of valuation and meaning.
<
p>See: http://www.merriam-webster.com… “worth” itself can be a noun, verb, or adjective. I was considering the “noun” status of “worth” in my analysis.
<
p>Even at that, “worth” may mean:
<
p>1. Monetary value
2. The value of something measured by the esteem in which it is held.
3. Moral or personal value
<
p>The appropriate level of pay for an executive implicates all three of these meanings – and I addressed each to some degree. Why that, in your view, constitutes ‘sophistry” is, of course, an expression of your disagreement with my argument, and what appears to be a decision to engage in either a personal attack [for to call another’s argument sophistry is to call that person deceitful]. It is, however, as personal attacks go, certainly polite as well as an erudite slam.
… actually disagree and are actually talking a little past each-other. KBusch’s point, as I read it, was that any discussion of how much salary is too much can’t draw final conclusions in good faith without acknowledging that there is a market on labor and talent that would have to be considered. That being said, it is certainly valid to point out the relative ‘over-worth’ of a salary figure relative to the specifics of job function. It is also certainly valid to talk about a specific figure’s moral inappropriateness. In addition, it should also be noted, as you did up thread, that there are other ‘market’ considerations beyond labor that are at play… specifically the market of donors and their reaction to whatever can be said about the worth of position in question.
<
p>All of these factors of ‘worth’ are at play. KBusch was making inquiries and observations about one particular aspect. The isolation of a particular aspect in an overall discussion can be informative, after all. Addressing those issues by bringing up the other aspects is somewhat non-responsive… it doesn’t actually get to what KBusch was bringing up. Additionally, I don’t think KBusch ever actually disagreed with your assertions regarding alternate measures of value nor the impact of donors. So I don’t think you’re actually in disagreement her as far as I can tell.
<
p>An interesting aside, in regard to what you brought up about the impact of donor reactions. Certainly any donor can object to the specifics on any set of grounds that they want, including the different measures of worth that you have brought up. I would hope that in any such calculation they wouldn’t deliberately ignore the market aspect. The market is, after all, the part of the equation that the organization has the least amount of direct control of. Some of this is probably an ethical instinct of mine that is a personal pet peeve: I hate being blamed for things that are out of my control.
I meant to add that any characterizations I’ve made about you or KBusch here are purely my own observations and impressions. I certainly don’t speak for you and, as such, I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that I have misunderstood.
In fact, the major market correction going on is a time to dare to question the way “business as usual” was done.
<
p>Thus, I dare to question the assertion that the “market” for CEOs created the compensation rate for the MSPCA’s CEO, and that equal – and also dared to assert that a CEO who was paid at a level of not more than 5x the average MSPCA worker would have greater worth because:
<
p>1. Donor appreciation of a CEO who put the animals and organization ahead of wealth would, in and of itself, likely lead to better donations.
<
p>2. Better morale among employees would lead to less absenteeism, less turnover, and better productivity.
<
p>3. “leading from the front” in this fashion might well mean more donations of goods and labor for the MSPCA.
<
p>There are many organizations where morale and productivity and even the viability of the organization itself were negatively impacted by the compensation of upper management and the Board of Directors siphoning off such a large percentage of funds that the organization became nonviable. In fact, this became a major problem with charitable foundations in this state, leading to AG action recently [some foundations had 50-70% of their funds drained by what the AG decided were grossly inappropriate compensation].
<
p>While I do not seek “legislation” to control salaries & compensation whether of foundations, charities, or any other business, I do highly value transparency and appreciate the greater and greater access to compensation figures provided by the internet, and in this case, by AG Coakley’s website.
This is like watching my mom and dad fight…cut it out guys…
That’s what happens on a Friday with no one else home and having time to say everything I had to say on a topic…maybe it is just as well I rarely have this much time.
That’s a lot of words in response to a comment you don’t understand.
<
p>What’s with the brackets?
<
p>Were I to continue in this odd pedagogical style, I’d offer extended quotations from reference works on the proper use of parentheses. Of course, doing so would not be condescending. I’d have an excellent model to work from.
G’night!
your poll makes me think that that’s at least part of what you’re advocating for…
<
p>which is honestly not the part of your post that I disagree with, but it is a part that I think you make.
You are arguing that the salaries paid to these executives are not relative to the executives’ value to the organization. But I have not yet seen any data to support that assertion. I personally have no clue whether these people are good at their jobs and worth the money they earn.
<
p>Stomv posted info showing that the MSPCA is pretty efficient when it comes to allocating resources to their mission with low overhead. The counter argument seems to be that they’ve had to close shelters. Is that a result of mismanagement by the top executives or a reflection of the economy as a whole and a sparer pool of donations to draw from? I don’t know, and you haven’t given me any data one way or the other.
<
p>Personally, I’m not going to be outraged because the CEO of a multi-million dollar non-profit gets paid $350,000. Knowing what I do of NPOs, the CEO is probably responsible for bringing in his own salary and then some in donations. The crappy economy is hardly his fault. As others have said, if the organization could hire an executive to perform at the same level for a salary of only $100,000, they probably would.
<
p>Perhaps the organization needs to re-examine their allocation of funds to preserve services in a difficult economy, but that’s not the argument you’ve made. You’re just morally outraged that a non-profit exec is making a sizable salary – it’s not a position that I (or, apparently, others here) can get behind without a good bit more info.
A better conversation to have, IMO, is to debate the merits of having a nonprofit system to take care of homeless pets (or people, for that matter) at all. To me, all it is is a shirking of responsibilities, from society to the relatively few people who are willing to give a damn that’s big enough to actually contribute funds. If this org raised $20 mil last year, I say we nationalize the sucker and open a few new branches, which will be funded through Ryan’s Benevolent Masterplan, which is to raise income taxes around 1% as a bridge until we get a freaking progressive income tax passed. Then, government needs to start owning up to problems such as poverty, homelessness and, yes, homeless kitties and pooches.
pay for this, pay for that, pay for everything.. when will it stop????
Hardly. I just said that it should be held responsible, as the only institution capable to do so, in tackling problems such as homelessness. That’s a far cry from “pay[ing] for everything.”
Sorry I butted in on this thread so late!
<
p>I found it exceptionally interesting and haven’t really checked in on BMG today for once.